The ACLU's Position Next Year?

The following is from the ACLU’s website and gives their reasoning for not supporting the Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court finds the amendment does indeed recognize that firearms ownership is an individual right, the rational the ACLU is using will be moot. How do you think they will react? If they are forced to admit they had been mistaken, they would have to either put up or shut up. If they adjust their policies to accept that firearms ownership is every bit as much a civil right as free speech or freedom of the press, they will likely see a huge jump in requests for assistance because firearms ownership is arguably the most violated civil right out there. The text is below, with emphasis added:

Gun Control (3/4/2002)

Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms?

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
— The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.

If you read some of their supporting statements, it appears that they ‘went out looking’ for reasons not to support gun ownership. They rely on misquotes and even pure hyperbole to bolster their position. One wonders what they will do if the framework they’ve built up to make these claims fails.

If you enjoyed reading about "The ACLU's Position Next Year?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

El Tejon

December 31, 2007, 04:45 PM

The ACLU will continue to undermine the Constitution no matter what. The ACLU cannot support the Second Amendment as it prevents radical transformation of the USA into the socialist society of their ideals.

Glockman17366

December 31, 2007, 04:46 PM

I'm actually surprised the ACLU hasn't involved itself in the Heller case. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or bad thing...

I'd like to see cases such as Heller be initiated in CA, IL, MD and other anti-rights states. Wonder where the ACLU would go then.

I do see the ACLU used selected quotes from the Miller case to make their point.

El Tejon

December 31, 2007, 04:47 PM

Where the ACLU would go?:confused:

The ACLU would be in opposition and in support of the goverment.

Big45

December 31, 2007, 04:48 PM

ACLwho?

strat81

December 31, 2007, 04:55 PM

They could just say, "Who cares what SCOTUS says, we still don't like the 2nd Amendment."

Wolfgang2000

December 31, 2007, 05:01 PM

Bottom line, the ACLU is a communist based organization. Have you ever seen a communist country that supported the individual right of firearm ownership?

And you won't.

TexasRifleman

December 31, 2007, 05:03 PM

They could just say, "Who cares what SCOTUS says, we still don't like the 2nd Amendment."

I think that's what pretty much all of them will do, many States included.

TallPine

December 31, 2007, 05:05 PM

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms.

Wow - something I agree with them on :p

230RN

December 31, 2007, 05:06 PM

"If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns."

I love that one.

'Cept cars don't guarantee the rest of the Amendments.

El Tejon

December 31, 2007, 05:08 PM

If we can license newspapers . . . oh, wait a minute.:rolleyes:

RPCVYemen

December 31, 2007, 05:13 PM

The ACLU cannot support the Second Amendment as it prevents radical transformation of the USA into the socialist society of their ideals.

Please back up the claim that the ACLU has a socialist society as their idea. With some actual facts.

Here's a pretty standard definition of socialsm:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Mike

Standing Wolf

December 31, 2007, 05:14 PM

They could just say, "Who cares what SCOTUS says, we still don't like the 2nd Amendment."

They're not honest enough.

El Tejon

December 31, 2007, 05:17 PM

Mike, you're kidding, right?:eek:

From the very beginning the ACLU has been the stalking horse of socialism. It's purpose was to use the freedoms of America against America to destroy America.

"I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

Roger Baldwin (founder of the ACLU), 1935

RPCVYemen

December 31, 2007, 05:18 PM

Bottom line, the ACLU is a communist based organization. Have you ever seen a communist country that supported the individual right of firearm ownership?

Strong argument - almost all communist countries respect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, due process, right against self-incrimination, right? ALCU fights daily for those freedoms because it's a communist front, right?

You knocked 'em for a loop with that one.

Mike

RPCVYemen

December 31, 2007, 05:27 PM

"I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

Oops, you forgot to tell the rest of the story. I am sure that was only an accident - with no intent to mislead, so I will supply it from a Wikipedia article:

In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. He later denounced communism in his book, A New Slavery, which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny" [1]. In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members [2].

So you have shown that one of the founders of the ACLU had a flirtation with communism, and soundly rejected it - even to the point of purging the ACLU of Communist Party members.

That's your strongest proof that the ACLU has a socialist society as its ideal? You're kidding, right?

Mike

Big45

December 31, 2007, 05:29 PM

I have to agree with RPC, just because they get their knickers all in a bunch about guns, doesn't necessarily make them Stalin's secret police.

mekender

December 31, 2007, 05:30 PM

The ACLU's Position Next Year?

im guessing bent backwards with their heads firmly lodged in their own rear ends...

this is the same organization that decried the NYPD for conducting random bag searches in the subway, but had a sign at their own headquarters saying that bags were subject to search...

this is the same group that fell all over them selves to find lawyers for terrorists at Gitmo, but refused to provide any help when US servicemen were charged with crimes that didnt occur...

this is the same group that demands that crosses and nativity scenes be taken down from public lands, but then fights for the rights of muslims to have special prayer rooms "meditation rooms" in public univeristies

they are the enemy within our own borders... frankly they are traitors

TexasRifleman

December 31, 2007, 05:32 PM

That's your strongest proof that the ACLU has a socialist society as its ideal?

Ummm, Socialism and Communism are not the same thing :)

hso

December 31, 2007, 05:36 PM

If you want to discuss how to sway the ACLU once Heller is decided or what to do to change their position before Heller, a discussion in Activism would be appropriate. Otherwise this one's off topic.

If you enjoyed reading about "The ACLU's Position Next Year?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!